NPR’s Science Friday goes after creationist mimic

Hits "Real Science Friday" with a trademark suit.

Earlier this month the people behind NPR's Science Friday radio show took some time to have a Legal Friday. On that day, they filed a suit against a minister/broadcaster named Bob Enyart for calling his Colorado-based radio program "Real Science Friday."

NPR's Science Friday is a multimedia machine with radio broadcasts on NPR, podcasts, online content, and more. It's backed by the Science Friday Initiative, which performs additional outreach intended to help give the public access to the latest in science.

Enyart's program also has all of the above (the radio program, the podcasts, the YouTube videos). But it lacks the backing of a foundation—and the science part. His "Real Science Friday" website (Tagline: "Don't Be Fooled by NPR's parody titled Science Friday ;)") contains a variety of standard creationist material, much of it attacking evolution, but some of it arguing for a Universe that's only a few thousand years old as well.

Having listened to one "Real Science Friday" podcast about how caterpillars destroy atheism (don't ask), I came away feeling like I lost a few IQ points in the process. While Ars feels that Enyart and his partner, Fred Williams, should probably be sued for false advertising in calling their material "science," Science Friday is suing the two podcasters for trademark violations, cybersquatting, and false advertising in passing themselves off as the NPR program.

The suit notes that Science Friday has five registered trademarks and claims that the creationist group is diluting them and confusing consumers. Science Friday says that in iTunes, the creationist podcast shows up in searches and in the "Listeners also subscribed to" section. On Google, it lands on top of the second page of results ahead of several legitimate web pages. (As of this writing, both of those facts stand.)

The suit demands a variety of relief for the NPR program, asking that the creationists be made to stop using the logo in electronic form, turn over the Internet domain, and hand over any physical materials (like CDs) that bear the logo. Enyart would also have to purge the term from all electronic outlets—YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, and the Feedburner RSS service. "Real Science Friday" would have to turn over its financial records as well, and would face financial damages as determined by the courts.

The suit was filed on Science Friday's home turf in the New York State Supreme Court.

As ridiculous as I find Enyart's creationist propaganda, I think that NPR is doing themselves a grave disservice by giving this guy a forum. The only thing his program has in common with theirs is the name - his site isn't even a bad knockoff of theirs - they look nothing alike.

Sadly, I think NPR will end up driving more traffic to this fool by publicizing his program for him.I'd certainly never heard of him before this lawsuit.

I don't think they should be using the word "science". America, you are strange.

Hey, now, every nation has its share of kooks.Difference is, most other (democratic) nations don't have a significant chunk of a major political party made up of 'em. Not going to say which one, but it rhymes with Prepublican.

Good!The dude isn't just ripping off their name, he's trying to parody them while at the exact same time claiming THEY are the ones who ripped him off.

RELIGION IS NOT SCIENCE.

Enyart needs to be charged for some sort of fraud.You can't sell a cheap Gremlin by claiming it's a Bently... false advertisement should also apply to religion.(So close all the "Christian Science Reading Rooms" as well. They're shop morons running oxymoron shops.)

As ridiculous as I find Enyart's creationist propaganda, I think that NPR is doing themselves a grave disservice by giving this guy a forum. The only thing his program has in common with theirs is the name - his site isn't even a bad knockoff of theirs - they look nothing alike.

Sadly, I think NPR will end up driving more traffic to this fool by publicizing his program for him.I'd certainly never heard of him before this lawsuit.

No, just the opposite, imo. I don't think the majority of Americans, if they think about it all, realize how common the belief system of guys like Enyart are. He already has a forum, among people that believe as he does, which would be tolerable if they weren't doing their best to subvert the teaching of the real science of evolution around the country. Expose this nonsense as much as possible, I say. Ridicule is a powerful tool.

I don't think they should be using the word "science". America, you are strange.

Hey, now, every nation has its share of kooks.Difference is, most other (democratic) nations don't have a significant chunk of a major political party made up of 'em. Not going to say which one, but it rhymes with Prepublican.

Hey now, America isn't a true democracy... we're a representative democracy.We vote for politicians who represent our interests on our behalf. (Senate/Congress)We also cast votes which are supposed to indicate how (the electoral college members) should vote...even though there is no constitutional rule guaranteeing they do so (and have voted rogue many times in the past).

I never understood why Ars says stuff like 'Having listened to one "Real Science Friday" podcast about how caterpillars destroy atheism (don't ask), I came away feeling like I lost a few IQ points in the process.' It's totally unprofessional. From Ars' standpoint, a professional approach would be to explain how the theory of evolution explains the radical metamorphosis (literally dissolving in the chrysalis) that caterpillars go through.

First, Ars is a blog, not a scientific journal.

Second, evolution doesn't explain metamorphosis, it explains the mechanism by which metamorphosis came to be. You're asking that the mechanics of an internal combustion engine be explained by the economics behind the development of the automobile.

Third, whereas the theory of evolution has a great deal of scientifically testable supports, creationism requires the unsupported existance of a supernatural entity.

kranchammer wrote:

Entegy wrote:

I don't think they should be using the word "science". America, you are strange.

Hey, now, every nation has its share of kooks.Difference is, most other (democratic) nations don't have a significant chunk of a major political party made up of 'em. Not going to say which one, but it rhymes with Prepublican.

Meh, I like NPR and all, but I'd like to see exactly how this is hurting NPR's numbers. While "Science Friday" is in their name, I don't see why there's a case here (see Mojang vs Bethesda about "Scrolls"). It also doesn't make sense to say they are passing themselves off as NPR if they are saying that NPR is a parody of them. Also, cybersquatting? Really?

Guys, I get it, religion badmouthing science is annoying, sure, but this seems like they're just trying to stop them because they are making a mockery of the word "science." While that's definitely awful, it's not hurting NPR specifically. Can we move on from these damn trademark and copyright lawsuits? Even you, NPR, can't you get your money from donations instead of trolling along with this minister?

No, you don't get it. Nor the danger.While the rest of the 1st world is becoming more and more sane and secular, the U.S. is in a nosedive in exactly the opposite direction.

When the first 'Creation Science' museum went up, I thought it was hilarious. ..Well people, it's no longer funny. These monuments to human stupidity and wishful thinking are popping up like weeds. Everywhere.

Eve in the garden of eden? Wearing polyester bloomers whilest riding a velociraptor? I mean, GOOD GRIEF! ARE THESE SIMPLETONS THAT STUPID?!? (No joke.)

The horrific thing is how popular they are. I went to one and literally wanted to puke.If you visit one of these pits, PLEASE don't laugh or snicker. In these venues it's a 'Very Bad Thing' -as I found out.

But how can the madness be stopped? I don't have a clue. Education doesn't seem to work.

Edit: Against all better judgement I clicked on a link, thinking, How could they screw this up? Sure enough, even the theory of relativity* is "liberal claptrap". It's like the entire site is one enormous example of Poe's Law.

* I can't even embed their link for this. Here it is in plaintext (also available on their front page in case this doesn't work):

Meh, I like NPR and all, but I'd like to see exactly how this is hurting NPR's numbers. While "Science Friday" is in their name, I don't see why there's a case here (see Mojang vs Bethesda about "Scrolls"). It also doesn't make sense to say they are passing themselves off as NPR if they are saying that NPR is a parody of them. Also, cybersquatting? Really?

Mojang v Bethesda was a ridiculous lawsuit over the use of a generic word for a completely unrelated product. this is an organization with a trademarked name going after someone who's blatantly ripping off their trademark to boost the views on his page that blatantly opposes the trademark-holder and also claims that it's the real deal.

Having listened to one "Real Science Friday" podcast about how caterpillars destroy atheism (don't ask)

I'm sorry, but no; I have to ask. How... how does that even work? Is Atheism like leaves and the caterpillars eat it? Is this like famed Bananaman Ray Comfort with his "Atheists nightmare," the banana?

I want to understand the fail-logic being employed here.

powtfunndop wrote:

I never understood why Ars says stuff like 'Having listened to one "Real Science Friday" podcast about how caterpillars destroy atheism (don't ask), I came away feeling like I lost a few IQ points in the process.' It's totally unprofessional. From Ars' standpoint, a professional approach would be to explain how the theory of evolution explains the radical metamorphosis (literally dissolving in the chrysalis) that caterpillars go through.

There are some people who deserve such "professionalism." Anyone who says "caterpillars destroy atheism" is not deserving of having an intelligent reply. They'd just respond with pre-programmed garbage anyway.

You can have an intelligent conversation with some people. These people aren't them, and engaging them intelligently is not helpful to anyone.

It's not unprofessional; it's economical. It's spending time where it belongs.

This isn't about "hurting Science Friday's numbers"...but about legal trademark and a clear and obvious intention of the Denver duo to ride those coattails. If a trademark holder doesn;t attempt to defend their trademark, they can eventually lose that trademark.

...Guys, I get it, religion badmouthing science is annoying, sure, but this seems like they're just trying to stop them because they are making a mockery of the word "science." While that's definitely awful, it's not hurting NPR specifically. Can we move on from these damn trademark and copyright lawsuits? Even you, NPR, can't you get your money from donations instead of trolling along with this minister?

...When the first 'Creation Science' museum went up, I thought it was hilarious. ..Well people, it's no longer funny. These monuments to human stupidity and wishful thinking are popping up like weeds. Everywhere....

Stupidity (not just ignorance) is fended off only by humor and ridicule. If NPR's "lawsuit" draws attention of the public and their disdain, it's probably for the good. Weeds grow if they are not discovered and unearthed.

A lawsuit is a bit much, as I cannot imagine the fiscal impact or reputation of NPR are on the line and it's a distraction for NPR. They might have just made fun of it on the air as part of "Science Friday", and encouraged everyone to visit this lunatic's site and see for themselves.

BTW, in China if they copyright infringe your work, it is considered a sign of recognition and honor.

Edit: Against all better judgement I clicked on a link, thinking, How could they screw this up? Sure enough, even the theory of relativity* is "liberal claptrap". It's like the entire site is one enormous example of Poe's Law.

* I can't even embed their link for this. Here it is in plaintext (also available on their front page in case this doesn't work):

From Ars' standpoint, a professional approach would be to explain how the theory of evolution explains the radical metamorphosis (literally dissolving in the chrysalis) that caterpillars go through.

From Ars' standpoint, we do not re-explain the constitution every time a legal decision is handed down. We do not also rederive the theory of evolution every time we do a short piece that touches on it.

I did my doctoral thesis on Drosophila genetics. I could do a 20 page story on insect morphogenesis without breaking a sweat. I'm not going to do so on a Friday night for a short news story. I'm also not going to re-prove that HIV causes AIDS every time we mention Peter Duesberg.

Edit: Against all better judgement I clicked on a link, thinking, How could they screw this up? Sure enough, even the theory of relativity* is "liberal claptrap". It's like the entire site is one enormous example of Poe's Law.

* I can't even embed their link for this. Here it is in plaintext (also available on their front page in case this doesn't work):

I'm actually surprised by that Conservapedia page. Oh, the intro section is pure garbage, but a lot of what follows is pretty solid (ignoring the "some scientists" crap). In fact, the page seems to be saying, "E=mc² is crap. Now here's some evidence showing it's not."

Which really sums up the idiocy of Conservapedia in a nutshell: in attempting to provide legitimate facts and information, they undermine their own premise.

I never understood why Ars says stuff like 'Having listened to one "Real Science Friday" podcast about how caterpillars destroy atheism (don't ask), I came away feeling like I lost a few IQ points in the process.' It's totally unprofessional. From Ars' standpoint, a professional approach would be to explain how the theory of evolution explains the radical metamorphosis (literally dissolving in the chrysalis) that caterpillars go through.

First, Ars is a blog, not a scientific journal.

Second, evolution doesn't explain metamorphosis, it explains the mechanism by which metamorphosis came to be. You're asking that the mechanics of an internal combustion engine be explained by the economics behind the development of the automobile.

Third, whereas the theory of evolution has a great deal of scientifically testable supports, creationism requires the unsupported existance of a supernatural entity.

Ars is a hybrid news/blog site. Ars' main about page states that 'At Ars, "opinion" never devolves into dogma; we strive for measured judgments and carefully relayed contexts.' So while you can make an argument that Ars can be unprofessional because they are a blog, you are essentially devaluing Ars' worth. Why do you think people hate Fox News and MSNBC so much? Because they mix their opinions with the news. When Ars starts doing the same thing, it's dangerous ground.

I think when asking how evolution explains something, it's fairly implied that one means how a thing came to be, not how something actually works. Even so, the two are obviously intertwined.

I agree that a kneejerk sneer is the prejudice-reinforcement mechanism we should all avoid, but we can also generally agree that some statements have so much wrongheadedness and tenuous assumption built-in that they merit Pauli's weary dismissal:

So I thought Boskone's basic objection is quite sound: your metamorphosis example mashes together two fields in a thoroughly unhelpful manner. His analogy is quite nice - to answer the question as you formed from first(ish) principles would require quite a book. As probably would this "caterpillar" example - except that quite likely it's being used as a kite by an author who has no interest in hearing the replies and no possibility of changing his thinking through discussion (only through revelation).

You shouldn't have to stoop to powtfunndop's level in your response. All reasoned, wise, and erudite analyses are free of emotional bias, and state facts clearly and simply for the reader to access. As one PhD to another, you will do yourself a service staying above the noise.

Edit: Against all better judgement I clicked on a link, thinking, How could they screw this up? Sure enough, even the theory of relativity* is "liberal claptrap". It's like the entire site is one enormous example of Poe's Law.

* I can't even embed their link for this. Here it is in plaintext (also available on their front page in case this doesn't work):

It's kind of funny that at conservapedia that you can get blocked from editing if your edits are not conservative enough as well as if your edits are conservative enough but they think you're making fun of them.

I don't think they should be using the word "science". America, you are strange.

I don't even think they should be using the word "Friday":Freya/Frigga is the Nordic name of Venus, the polytheist goddess of sex without procreation!They should move to show to Sabbath Day, the only non-pagan day name...

I would generally consider this a fair use/parody case, but the line "Don't Be Fooled by NPR's parody titled Science Friday " is pretty borderline. In order to be considered fair use, he should have to make it clear that his is the derivative work and not the original.

I'm actually surprised by that Conservapedia page. Oh, the intro section is pure garbage, but a lot of what follows is pretty solid (ignoring the "some scientists" crap). In fact, the page seems to be saying, "E=mc² is crap. Now here's some evidence showing it's not."

Which really sums up the idiocy of Conservapedia in a nutshell: in attempting to provide legitimate facts and information, they undermine their own premise.

In this case, judging from the length of the talk page and history, I'm guessing that it is a hodgepodge left over from numerous contributors and internal bickering, with no final cleanup.

Of course the subject matter itself is obviously a bit abstract for the great minds at Conservapedia, so watching them grapple with the topic is probably akin to watching chimpanzees trying to repair a photocopier.

As a naturalist, I think the Discovery/Science/History channels are doing science a discredit by putting out half-assed scientifically researched shows that have a sensationalized tone. And they'll make 'scientific' statements w/out explaining in laymens terms how they got to it. BBC shows do a much better job at this.

And then there are too many 'scientific' statements made that have not had enough peer review, like the guy who claimed neutrinos going faster than speed of light last year. That should have had a great deal of peer review before going to public. Granted we live in a blogsphere world with no journalistic integrity and unchecked theories get out anyway, but the science community needs to be much more careful with its claims or will lose people who at least try to reason through it - very few will even try. The scientific community needs to come up with the best practices for presenting theories so that mainstream media doesn't spin them the wrong way.

Science seems to be losing to creationists as they have a made up nirvana message that comes with it that many want to hear.